WorldNetDaily: Adam & Eve Were Real

The blaring sirens and flashing lights were going wild and the blinking letters of the wall display of our Retard-o-tron™ said WorldNetDaily. WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus that jolly logo displayed above this post.

We were directed to a WND post titled Adam and Eve – just an allegory? It’s by Jerry Newcombe, a preacher who used to work with James Kennedy, the now-deceased televangelist who made the influential “documentary” Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, based on the book From Darwin to Hitler by Discovery Institute “fellow” Richard Weikart.

Newcombe’s article has a sub-title: “Exclusive: Jerry Newcombe battles those who pooh-pooh Genesis, embrace Darwin.” You know this is going to be fun. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Were Adam and Eve real people? I’m not a scientist, and I don’t play one on TV. But I believe they were. Why? Because I believe Jesus was who He said He was – God’s only begotten Son, and clearly He believed they were real.

The next few paragraphs are all scripture stuff. We’ll skip that but you’ll certainly want to go to WND to read it for yourself. Then he says:

John Hancock, John Adams and Ben Franklin learned their ABCs with the New England Primer, which says for the letter A: “A, In Adam’s fall, we sinned all.”

That’s certainly persuasive. Let’s read on:

How are we to understand claims of overwhelming “scientific facts” backing up the theory of evolution? Well, there are minor biological changes in nature. Some people call this “micro-evolution” (if you will), which simply refers to a limited range variation within a species or kind.

I called Dr. Patterson in 1987, and he verified the authenticity of the letter. … He told me on the phone that the letter was accurate (there are no definitive transitional forms between species in the fossil record); nonetheless, he still believed in evolution. He said we just haven’t discovered yet the right mechanism to prove evolution.

How very convenient that Patterson verified the quote in a phone conversation in 1987. It’s too late to ask him about it now because he died in 1998. But surely, a good man like Newcombe wouldn’t make stuff up. Here’s more:

In 1912, scientists discovered in England a human skull with a jaw like an ape. They named him Piltdown Man. This was, they said, evidence of true evolution in progress – a real ape man. He was in the textbooks, encyclopedias, museums and even the dictionaries. Finally, the missing link was no longer missing. But, of course, Piltdown Man turned out to be a deliberate hoax.

Rev Newcombe goes on a while longer, but we think this post is long enough. Click over to WND to read it all. Perhaps you’ll be persuaded that Adam and Eve were real people. Our opinion is that the rev needs to polish his argument a bit. It hasn’t been updated for decades.

Mambo; derived from Kikongo(a conversation with God) brought to Cuba by West African slaves,
“Mambo” was an Italian American movie (1954)
“Mambo hayo” in Swahili means these things.
In voudou(Haitian) mambo is a voodoo priestess.
The mambo was first described as extreme and undisciplined
by American dance instructors
Putting all this together in a quote mining creationism approach
to what Newcombe just said as he explains why Adam and Eve were real peopleI I conclude what jerry is really trying to tell us is;
Voudou princesses brought Kikongo and Benjamin Franklin’s electricity experiments and some things to Cuba where,
after a conversation with God in an extreme and undisciplined
Italian American movie about a paleontologist who pooh poohed Genesis,
Newcombe believed Piltdown man had a transitional jaw like an ape
which later turned out to be a deliberate hoax because it was on TV..
cha… cha… cha….

I was fortunate to chat with Colin Patterson on a couple of occasions at meetings. We didn’t discuss anything of cosmic importance, unfortunately. I think Patterson had pretty much accepted Hennigian cladistic analysis methods in doing systematics and taxonomy. Henning treated all ancestors as hypothetical, because one cannot know if a particular taxon was an ancestor, or just a close relative. He treated a speciation event as extinction of the ancestral species and the origin of two new species. Never mind that one of the new species might be almost identical to the ancestral species.

I understand that molecular geneticists are having some success at reconstructing ancestral genomes.

This blog's RSS feed link:

Search for:

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Commenting Rules

Creationists should read the rules before posting any comments. See Comment Rules.

Here's how to use the available codes. Note that codes are used in pairs, to turn the effect on and then off again. Please don’t start one of these codes without closing it:

For italics:

<em>text</em>

For bold:

<strong>text</strong>

For strikethrough:

<del>text</del>

For blockquotes:

<blockquote>this will appear both indented and in italics</blockquote>